Misplaced Pages

Talk:Tocharian languages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kanguole (talk | contribs) at 10:27, 29 December 2013 (Reverted edits by Speling12345 (talk) to last version by Kanguole). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:27, 29 December 2013 by Kanguole (talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by Speling12345 (talk) to last version by Kanguole)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChina Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLanguages
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCentral Asia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconTocharian languages is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
  1. January 2005 to March 2008

Tocharian and Hittite

I've removed the following sentence, which had been commented out almost 3 years ago for lack of sources:

The one Indo-European language that seems to hold the most similarity to Tocharian is the ancient Hittite language, which ceased to be spoken around 1000 BC.

As far as I know, Tocharian and Hittite (or more generally, Anatolian) are not particularly closely related. They do share some common properties that few or no other IE languages have, but these are thought to be retained archaisms from the protolanguage, not shared innovations, and therefore not indicative of a close relationship. (1) Hittite and Tocharian both have mediopassive forms in -r. Before the discovery of these two branches, it was thought that mediopassive -r was innovation of Italo-Celtic, but once they were discovered in H & T, it was realized that it's a retention from the protolanguage (as a result, the best argument in favor of the Italo-Celtic hypothesis disappeared, and the two are no longer considered closely related). The other thing Hittite and Tocharian have in common is the retention of -tk- (etc.) clusters unchanged in words like like *h2rtko- "bear" and *dhghem- "earth". All other languages have changed these clusters in some way, and before H & T were discovered, they were reconstructed as *kþ/gð/ghðh despite the fact that *þ/ð/ðh didn't occur in any other environments. But again, this is an archaic retention in both languages, not a shared innovation. —Angr 19:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Some ad-hoc examples prove nothing. Nearly ALL lexicostatistical studies including my own agree regarding Hittite being the closest neighbor of Tocharian. Thus please leave that sentence where it was. HJJHolm (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Lexicostatistical studies are not a great argument, however. Especially when they fail to respect the distinction between Hittite and Anatolian. It's like saying Gothic for Germanic – an outdated usage, and not only imprecise but nonsensical when taken literally. That said, I would like to know how lexicostatistical studies identify common retentions and differentiate them from common innovations or other sources of agreement. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Tocharian C?

Hi. Should mention of Tocharian C be included? Mallory and Mair's book on the Tarim Mummies discusses the languages of the Tarim Basin, and notes that some scholars have identified certain Tocharian words in Prakrit texts from Lop Nor right down to Niya. They cite several examples (like a word for fruit and a case ending) which hint at a third Tocharian language in the southern Tarim. They also suggest that the name of the Kunlun mountains, which is not a Sino-Tibetan or Turkic name, derives from a Tocharian-language word relating to the heavens (Cognate: Kunlun -> Celestial). 144.32.126.14 (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Tocharian in Manichean script

Is it really necessary to write an article about "Tocharian script" when Tocharian was written in at least two scripts Brahmic and Manichean scripts . Only mentioning the Brahmic script implies that Tocharian was only written in Brahmic. Although I think I read it was also written in Sogdian script also I can not produce citations for this feeble allegation. I suggest we merge the Tocharian script article into the Tocharian language article. Tocharian information relating to this noble language is hard to come by and such a small article can be easily incorporated into The Tocharian language article. I suggest we merge them. This should be easy because most of the information on the Tocharian script article is on the Tocharian language article .If we don’t merge then I suggest we at least change the name of the article to Tocharian scripts. Thank you I look forward to every ones suggestions. --Zaharous (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Notes
  1. Daniels (1996), p. 531
  2. Campbell (2000), p. 1666
Sources
  • Daniels, Peter (1996), The Worlds Writing Systems, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195079930
  • Campbell, George (2000), Compendium of the Worlds Languages Second Edition: Volume II Ladkhi to Zuni, Routledge, ISBN 041520473 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
The point is that we have separate articles on the Manichaean script (used for whatever languages it was used for, including but not restricted to Tocharian) and the Brahmic script used for Tocharian, called here the Tocharian script. I don't know whether the Tocharian Brahmic script was ever used to write any other language besides Tocharian. If the title "Tocharian script" is ambiguous, we could move the article to Tocharian Brahmic script, but only if there's evidence that published sources use that name for it. +Angr 06:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Resemblance

I couldn't help noticing a few stroking resemblances between Tocharian A and danish: "cow" is "ko" in both languages. "To milk" is "malk" in Tocharian A and "malke" in danish. I wonder if there are more? JoaCHIP (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably; after all, these similarities you noticed are no coincidences. In both cases, the Danish and Tocharian words are descended from the same Proto-Indo-European root. +Angr 06:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The points of resemblance specifically with Danish, however, are necessarily coincidental. It is true that Tocharian has sometimes been said to be particularly close to Germanic, but such comparisons have been made with just about every other group except Indo-Iranian (which is clearly dissimilar), and in any case Modern Danish has diverged very far from Proto-Germanic. Proto-Tocharian has completely different sound changes and morphology than Germanic, and a fortiori Danish, has. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Centum

Further information: Proto-Indo-European phonology

it is true that Tocharian and Anatolian are often called "centum". But it is very important to point out that they do not meet the narrow definition of centum. There is a distinction between "phonological centum" and "phonetic centum":

  • phonological: has two rows of tectals, one from (plain velars + palatals) and the other from labiovelars
  • phonetic: the reflexes of the palato-velars are tectal  and have not been fronted to //.

Tocharian is "centum" in the weaker, purely phonetic, sense, but it isn't any more "centum" than "satem" in the phonological sense, as all three tectal rows have been collapsed into a single one. --dab (𒁳) 14:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I propose to remove that centum-satem chart, which represents neither a dispersion nor is it a diachronic map. These views are simply outdated for years. HJJHolm (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, dab is incorrect here. Proto-Tocharian clearly had separate k and kʷ sounds, i.e. exactly the "phonological centum" term you use. Later, both A and B mostly merged the labiovelar into the velar, but in the meantime the labiovelar sound influenced nearby vowels leaving numerous traces, and in fact did so in a way that's different between Toch A and Toch B, which clearly indicates that the loss postdates Proto-Tocharian. Furthermore, Ringe has shown that when Proto-Tocharian had a kʷ directly preceding a voiceless consonant, it was preserved unchanged in western Tocharian B dialects. Benwing (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Tocharian C

Agree with above...Is it too early to begin citing the sources and content of the Tocharian C that is said to have been evidenced along the South of the Tarim basin? I also read that Toch C is the earliest of the two languages from which the others are derived.

Where have you read that? Mallory & Adams (in the EIEC, which is where I recall reading about that) at least state no such thing, if I remember correctly. Tocharian C is simply presumed to be a third Tocharian language independently descended from Proto-Tocharian; it seems too young (3rd/4th centuries?) and quite possibly in the wrong place, too (in the south, not the north), to be identified with Proto-Tocharian. Isn't it said to have been spoken in the Loulan region?
It's never too early to begin citing the sources! By all means, add Tocharian C if you have sources. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought "Bi" was greek or latin for two not "Duo"

I always get confused between the two languages because of their significance in scientific vocabulary but I always thought that 1 was uni in one language and mono in the other, the same goes for 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.127.0 (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

    • Nope, Latin has 'duo', Ancient Greek had 'δύο' (which is usually transcribed as dúo). bi- is a prefix from Latin, which sometimes changed initial du- to b-, as in bis from duis. Baranxtu (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Old Latin /dw/ (spelled du/DV) has changed to b in Classical Latin completely regularly. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Why Hindustani?

I see no reason for the recent addition of Hindustani to the language comparison chart, as that language is younger than the extinction of Tocharian, and we already have two Indo-Aryan languages. Wouldn't Proto-Germanic be more relevant? Devanatha (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I've removed Farsi and Hindustani as these are later languages and the related language of Vedic Sanskrit (which is the one that matters) is on the list. I suppose if someone really wants to distinguish India from Iran we could add Avestan. We can't use Proto-Germanic as that is a reconstructed language. The usual thing to use for the Germanic languages is Gothic. Hittite would be really nice though. Ekwos (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Language Comparison Table

The language comparison table (until my last edit) contained three contemporary languages - English, Farsi, and Hindustani. In general when one wishes to show languages as belonging to the Indo-European family one compares them to the most ancient attested members of the various groups. In this case the Indo-Iranian group is represented by Vedic Sanskrit, and there is no reason for the contemporary members of the group which are Farsi and Hindustani (one could perhaps include a word from Avestan if for some reason the word was missing from Vedic Sanskrit). In a similar vein we have Latin, and there would be no reason to include French or Spanish. English shouldn't be considered as being there to establish that the Tocharian languages are Indo-European, but is simply a convenient way of showing the meaning of the roots. The proper representative of the Germanic languages is Gothic. Please do not restore the table with Farsi or Hindustani again. Ekwos (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Split

This article should be split into articles for the Turfanian and Kuchean languages. Whoop whoop pull up 19:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's split, the articles should be called Tocharian A and Tocharian B, though, as those names are much more common than "Turfanian" and "Kuchean". Angr (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
We need some arguments to split. Tirgil34 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Euphemisms do not belong to science, they are a tool of politicians.

  • Tocharian A = is a philological euphemism for Turfanian, Arsi, or East Tocharian; no relation to Tochars or Tokhars, Yuezhi, Bactrian, or Tokharistan
  • Tokharian B = is a philological euphemism for Kuchea or West Tocharian; no relation to Tochars or Tokhars, Yuezhi, Bactrian, or Tokharistan

--Tirgil34 (talk) 15:06, 14. March 2012 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

Yes, Tirgil is right, generally those paintings are associated with Pseudo-Tocharians (false Tokhars). Maikolaser (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2012 (CET)
In short: there is no even one reliabe academic source which claims Tocharians were "Turks". We're all familiar with Tirgil34's Turanist agenda, the best example is his pseudo-historic claim that Scythian languages are "based on Turkic", even some Old-Persian terms despite the fact that Persian inscriptions are 1500 older then any know Turkic script. --217.24.133.219 (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
And talking about Maikolaser, he tried to manipulated with photo description of commons file SogdiansNorthernQiStellae550CE.jpg by changing it's date (despite reliable sources say late 6th century) just to show Sogdians as "Turks", and then he tried to manipulate ALL articles on English and other Wikipedias. Precisely the same thing Tirgil has done day earlier, by removing photo of Tocharians on all Wikipedias (there's strong posibility Maikolaser is his sockpuppet). Of course, it's all reverted. If pseudo-historic manipulation continue I'll contact all administrators related to historical articles. --217.24.133.219 (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Calm down, nobody claimed that what you have mentioned. And nobody is a Turanist here. The point is that the picture has nothing to do with Tocharians, nothing more. This is consensus. Please stop vandalism and persian nationalism, Tirgil34 is right. Maikolaser (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2012 (CET)
No, he's not, the IP user is right: Tirgil34's claim that "Tocharian A" and "Tocharian B" are euphemisms is unsubstantiated bullshit and doesn't even make sense. Tirgil34 is a Turkic nationalist with a Turanist agenda who tries to deny the fact that there is not a trace of Turkic languages or peoples in ancient Europe (prior to the Hunnic invasion) and the Ancient Near East. The name "Tocharians" may originally have referred to an Iranian people, but they were not Turkic.
Based on Chinese descriptions and also the Tarim mummies, it is generally accepted that Tocharian (as well as Iranian, especially Eastern Iranian) was mainly (and originally) spoken by people with an European (and even Northern/Eastern European), not East Asian (like the original speakers of Turkic) appearance, and genetical research supports the links of presumed Tocharian- and Iranian-speakers to Europe rather than Asia. There is a perfect convergence of linguistic, archaeological, physical anthropological and genetical evidence, which all ties the origin of both Tocharian and Iranian to the west (Eastern Europe in particular), not Central or East Asia. I remember reading that there are a few mummies from the Pazyryk burials with an East Asian appearance and these could conceivably be associated with the Proto-Turkic speech community, or something close to it. Speakers of Proto-Turkic (which according to plausible estimates was spoken about 500 BC in the Altai region) likely were in contact with speakers of early (Eastern) Iranian (especially Scythian) in the Altai region and could well have taken over cultural techniques from them. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The euphemism claim is ridiculous, but the other assertion – that Tocharian A and B are unrelated to the Tokhars, Bactrians or Tokharistan – is the majority view now. Kanguole 10:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

1-Persians are and have always been a brown-semitic people and direct branch of Mesopotamian civ. 2-Persian scripts?? were written in Mesopotamian letters of course. 3-Scythian invasion to current Azerbaijan is mentioned in Greece refrences, that is why there are few similar words in current Farsi and Germanic, because of Scythian Turks presence at the area. 4-Pan-Iranism propaganda and lies begun from Pahlavi rgeime's era, there has nevr been any people, tribe, nation or language called Iranian one. Pahlavi tried to assimilate Iranian Turks and steal the history of Turkic people and force put Persians as Aryans!!

The old Tochaians means Turk speaking people like turkmenes and huna (like Kushana) and more from turan bassin, Toxi means Turani. Later sodgier, bactrian controlls the silk route in west. Last Tochaians were greek (macedonian) soldiers of Alexanders Army what married womans from lot other folks, a lot tribes have a bit european genetic from greece. The tochaian letters are an greco-semitic alphabet in brahmi format. It was a pingdin languages of silkroute in tarim bassin with vedic base with much influence from all sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.9.26.32 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Problems with File:QizilDonors.jpg

Hallo, I recognized that the data which was given to this picture is based on wrong information:

  • 1.:It's not clear that they were Tocharians
  • 2.:The term "Sassanian style" was used in the wrong context.

What have been described is the wrong picture. The right one is Fig.1 on page 8 in this document: http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp084_mummies_central_asia.pdf

The "Tocharian" Colour Plate on page 9 is not fiting to the description of Fig.1. So, the description is wrong. We need a correction of the information given in this document. I've informed the Uploader Per_Honor_et_Gloria about this problem.

- Maikolaser (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2012 (CET)

Responded at the file talk page on Commons. Kanguole 13:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The article you link calls the figures "Tocharian Knight-Donors". This site at the University of Washington, apparently reproducing the museum display card, calls them "Tocharian Princes". This article says they were Tocharian speakers. So this image seems quite relevant to this article. (The caption here didn't mention "Sassanian style".) Kanguole 17:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes I agree with you. Discussion at talk page on commons and at Talk:Tarim mummies.- Maikolaser (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2012 (CET)

Tocharian verbs

"In contrast, the verb verbal conjugation system is quite conservative." Okay, if you say so and cite Beekes... Nonetheless, I'm deadly curious about what Tocharian verbs look like. Can someone add a table please? Steinbach (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Agni-Kuchi or Agni-Kuči

Everyone seems to use "Tocharian" for these languages, while acknowledging it is something of a misnomer. Is there any English-language literature calling them Agni-Kuchi/Kuči? Kanguole 18:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Not that I can see from a Google Books search. The closest I can find is "Tokharic, or Arshi-Kuchi ... as Sergent appropriately calls it" (Koenraad Elst, 1999). It would seem to be a term devised by Sergent, but not yet current in English language sources. BabelStone (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the fact that Tocharian is the most frequent term. Nobody wants to remove Tocharian in this article. The point is that, among certain specialists, Agni-Kuchi is preferred. So there is no serious reason to refuse the mention of Agni-Kuchi. Sergent's book is one of the most recognized syntheses about Indo-Europeans (even if it is written in French). Sergent's term was Arśi-Kuči in the first edition of 1995; it was replaced by the more accurate term Agni-Kuči (č = ch) in the second edition of 2005.--Nil Blau (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I take it we agree that Sergent's term is not used in English-language works on the subject. I have not suggested that it not be mentioned, just that it be presented as what it is, a proposal by Sergent that has not achieved wide acceptance. To present it in the lead as an alternative name is to mislead readers by suggesting that the name is in use in English, the language of this encyclopedia. It is our function to describe the situation as it is, not to promote a "better" usage. Kanguole 22:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Agni-Kuchi is in use in English, see: there and there (in the gray table called 'The major branches', 4th line); the term is also used in Portuguese, see there (second paragraph). And of course, it's used in French. It's mainly a question of specialized terminology, accepted in various languages. I'm OK with Tocharian, but it would be objective and encyclopedic to mention that Agni-Kuchi also exists as an alternative term.--Nil Blau (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Those examples are extremely weak. The first is an anonymous translation of a Chinese abstract, and does not use the term anyway (just Agni and Kuci as place-names). The second website appears to be a machine translation of the French WP article fr:Langues indo-européennes. We need something a bit more reliable. Mentioning Agni-Kuči in the Names section as a term proposed by Bernard is fine, but presenting it as an alternative name in the lead is undue weight and misleading. Kanguole 12:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Weak examples, but real examples. Never mind! Its isn't misleading to give in the introduction a specialized term, since it is used by one of the most reputed bibles of Indo-Europeanistics (i.e. Sergent's book). Well, I propose the following compromise. What about the following introduction? "Tocharian or Tokharian (/təˈkɛəriən/ or /təˈkɑriən/) —or more rarely Agni-Kuči— is an extinct branch of the Indo-European language family,..."--Nil Blau (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
No, I've demonstrated that these are simply not examples of usage of the term. It's not that this term is "more rarely" used; we've seen no evidence of any use at all in English-language works on the subject. A mention in the "Names" section is the appropriate place for it. Kanguole 19:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that any agreement is hard to find with you. I've made a proposal. You haven't.--Nil Blau (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I began by moving Sergent's term from the lead to the Names section, and that is where it belongs. We have seen no evidence that this name is used in English-language works on the subject, even "more rarely". Kanguole 22:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
You didn't "move" Sergent's term, you simply deleted it . That is: you supressed additional and objective information I added about naming issues. Your behavior isn't encyclopedic. Once again: I don't refuse the term Tocharian, I don't want to move the term Tocharian in a secondary position, I only want to inform readers about an objective fact concerning an alternative naming proposal, coming from one of the most reputed books in Indo-Europeanistics. You have no right to delete such information. I've suggested a compromise, you haven't. I'm OK to write that Sergent's term is rare or anecdotic in English use, no problem. But I won't accept any anti-encyclopedic deletion.--Nil Blau (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I did move it—read the whole diff you're pointing at. That is the compromise I began with. It is not "rare or anecdotic": you have yet to produce any evidence that it is used in English-language works on the subject. Kanguole 12:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Kanguole, my dear fellow and comrade, I genereously let you impose your will. I suggest you to read this page, then, take a rest and think about the sense of your life.--Nil Blau (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Nil Blau, please Assume Good Faith. Thank you. CodeCat (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

greek influence

it should be noted that the nature of the greek influence, which includes words for king and queen, is more easily explained by the presence of greek aristocrats in the area after the expansion of alexander than the difficult constructions that seem standard. as the source is very late, much later than the greek invasions, greek loan words into tocharian are not to be discounted - as they seem to be, currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.24 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hittite

Might it be appropriate to add Hittite to the table of comparison with other IE languages, given that immediately below it states that Tocharian is lexically most similar to Anatolian (by virtue of retained archaisms)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.60.202 (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

"Tocharians as the Greeks called them"?

It's not true that the Greeks called the speakers of these languages Tocharians. These manuscripts in the Tarim Basin oasis cities date from the 6th to 8th centuries AD, well after the Greeks were writing. It was Friedrich W. K. Müller who first called them "Tocharian" in 1907 after the manuscripts were found, because he identified their authors with the people Ptolemy described as conquering the Greco-Bactrian kingdom (1000km to the west) in the 2nd century BC. Most scholars now consider it a misnomer. The minority still arguing that the Bactrian people were originally Tocharian-speaking say they switched to Bactrian when they arrived in the area (i.e. before the Greeks encountered them). Kanguole 03:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories: